Lollar v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
376 F.2d 243 · 1967
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 6 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably Holloway v. Arkansas (1978), People v. Doolin (2009)
47 federal appellate · 6 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 18 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Glasser v. United States · Johnson v. Zerbst · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Douglas v. People of State of California
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]lie court shall appoint separate counsel for defendants who have such conflicting interests that they cannot properly be represented by the same counsel. * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘we can find no basis in the record for an informed speculation’ that appellant’s rights were prejudicially affected,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““What constitutes sufficient prejudice, however, is uncertain, some courts apparently requiring a very strong showing of actual prejudice,7 others suggesting, the possibility of prejudice is sufficient.8 “7. See, e.g., Lott v. United States, 5 Cir., 218 F. 2d 675 (1955); United States v. Burkeen, 6 Cir., 355 F. 2d 241 , cert. denied, sub. nom. Matlock v. United States, 384 U. S. 957 , 86 S. Ct. 1582 , 16 L.Ed.2d 553 (1966); Lugo v. United States, 9 Cir., 350 F. 2d 858 (1965). “8. See e.g., Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 75-76 , 62 S. Ct. 457 (1942); United States v. Dardi, supra Note 6; Sawyer v. Brough, 4 Cir., 358 F. 2d 70 (1966); Craig v. United States, supra Note 3; Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 406 Pa. 45 , 176 A. 2d 641 (1962). And see Waltz, Inadequacy of Trial Defense Representation as a Ground for Post-Conviction Relief in Criminal Cases, 59 Nw.U.L. Rev. 289, 334 (1963) ; Note, The Right to Effective Counsel in Criminal Cases, 9 Vand.L.Rev. 1920, 1926 (1965).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.